Redalyc.TOWARDS THE 3RD WAVE SCHOOL … · El documento también ilustra por qué el nuevo...
Transcript of Redalyc.TOWARDS THE 3RD WAVE SCHOOL … · El documento también ilustra por qué el nuevo...
Revista de Investigación Educativa
ISSN: 0212-4068
Asociación Interuniversitaria de Investigación
Pedagógica
España
Cheng, Yin Cheong
TOWARDS THE 3RD WAVE SCHOOL LEADERSHIP
Revista de Investigación Educativa, vol. 29, núm. 2, 2011, pp. 253-275
Asociación Interuniversitaria de Investigación Pedagógica
Murcia, España
Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=283322847002
How to cite
Complete issue
More information about this article
Journal's homepage in redalyc.org
Scientific Information System
Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal
Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative
253
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
Cheng, Yin Cheong (2011). Towards the 3rd Wave School Leadership. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 29 (2), 253-275.
TOWARDS THE 3RD WAVE SCHOOL LEADERSHIP
Yin Cheong ChengVice President (R&D), Chair Professor of Leadership and Change
Hong Kong Institute of EducationPresident-elect, World Educational Research Association
http://home.ied.edu.hk/~yccheng/
ABSTRACT
Numerous education reforms have been initiated in different parts of the world over the last two decades. What are the major trends of these reforms and how they are related to the changes in school leadership internationally? In particular, what paradigm shift is evident in school leadership effective in initiating school changes for learning in the context of globalization, economic transformation and international competition? These questions are crucial to the future development of students and society. This paper aims to elaborate the key features, rationales and implications of paradigm shifts in school leadership for learning in contexts of globalization and local developments. The paper also illustrates why a new paradigm of the third-wave leadership will be a major international trend of research, development, and practice of school leadership for new learning in the coming ten years.
Key words: school leadership; education reform; paradigm shift in education; new learning; school change.
HACIA EL 3er PARADIGMA DEL LIDERAZGO DE LA ESCUELA
RESUMEN
Durante las últimas dos décadas se han puesto en marcha numerosas reformas educativas en diversas partes del mundo. ¿Cuáles son las principales tendencias de estas reformas y cómo están relacionadas con los cambios en la dirección y liderazgo de la escuela a nivel interna-cional? En concreto, ¿qué cambio de paradigma es evidente en el liderazgo escolar eficaz a la
Correspondencia: Yin Cheong Cheng ([email protected])
254 Yin Cheong Cheng
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
hora de iniciar cambios en la escuela para el aprendizaje en el contexto de la globalización, la transformación económica y la competencia internacional? Preguntas como estas son cruciales para el futuro desarrollo de los estudiantes y la sociedad. El presente trabajo tiene como objetivo la elaboración de las características clave, la razón de ser, y las implicaciones de los cambios de paradigma en el liderazgo de la escuela para el aprendizaje en los contextos de globalización y desarrollo a nivel local. El documento también ilustra por qué el nuevo paradigma sobre el liderazgo, denominado de tercera corriente, será una importante tendencia en la investigación internacional, el desarrollo y la práctica del liderazgo escolar para un nuevo aprendizaje en los próximos diez años.
Palabras clave: liderazgo escolar; reformas educativas; cambio de paradigma en educación; nuevo aprendizaje; cambio escolar.
INTRODUCTION
Echoing the various waves of educational reforms and school restructuring move-ments not only in the western countries such as Canada, USA, and UK, but also in the Asia-Pacific such as Australia, New Zealand, Mainland China, Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong, the context of school leadership has been rapidly changing in the past two decades (Fullan, 1998; Chapman, Sackney, & Aspin; 1999; Cheng & Townsend, 2000). There were nine major trends of changes in different areas and levels of education (Cheng, 2005a; Keeves and Watanabe, 2003).
At the macro level, the main trends of educational reforms include re-establishing a new national vision and new educational aims for schools; restructuring education systems at different levels; and market-driving, privatizing, and diversifying school education. At the meso level, increasing parental and community involvement in edu-cation and management is a salient trend. At the site level, the major trends consist of ensuring education quality, standards, and accountability in educational institutions; implementing decentralization and school-based management; and enhancing teacher quality and lifelong professional development. At the operational level of educational institutions, the main trends include using information and communication technology (ICT) in learning and teaching and applying new technologies in management, and making a paradigm shift in learning, teaching, and assessment. These nine trends of educational changes at different levels have changed nearly every key aspect of most educational systems internationally and created tremendous impacts on the context of educational leadership and its practice for promoting learning.
In addition to the above changes and challenges, the trend of school-age popula-tion in decline in these ten years is also creating a great transformation in educational contexts of the East-Asia and Pacific Region in general. As indicated in the report of UNESCO Institute of Statistics 2006, most countries in this Region are experiencing school-age population decline from 3% to 41% between 2005 and 2015. Correspondingly, there have significant declines in demand for school places, causing serious school closure or competition for students among schools. This trend has further accelerated the movement of marketization and school competition in education initiated by edu-cational reforms in some countries in the Region.
255Towards the 3rd Wave School Leadership
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
These contextual changes have raised serious impacts and challenges to the tradi-tional thinking and practice of leadership in education and have driven the emergence of new leadership for learning (Cheng, 2002a,b; 2003; MacBeath & Cheng, 2008). School leaders are expected to be more strategic in their leadership and to lead their schools proactively in order to face up to the contextual challenges with appropriate strategies. Even though the conception of strategic leadership for learning is still vague and the domain of studying it is relatively diffused and uncharted, it often refers to leadership with the following key elements (Cheng, 2002b; Eacott, 2008a, b; Davies & Davies, 2006; Caldwell, 1989, 2006; Caldwell & Spink, 1992):
(1) It is proactive with respect to the contextual changes that potentially affect the future of students, education and the school;
(2) It leads the SWOT analysis of internal and external contexts and the positioning or re-positioning of the school for learning and educational practice in a chang-ing environment;
(3) It leads the planning and management of the key strategies or action programmes for effectiveness, survival, and development of the school and its educational practice in meeting the contextual challenges; and
(4) It leads the school to implement these strategies and evaluate their impacts on students’ learning with aims at informing the next planning cycle.
Given the fundamental changes in education internationally, how leadership can be strategically effective to initiate school reforms and educational innovations for new learning has become a much more crucial issue than ever to the future development of students and the society (Cheng, 2003; 2008a, b; 2010b; Walker, 2003; Hallinger, Walker & Bajunid, 2005). In particular, what paradigm shifts have been evident in school leadership internationally? This paper aims to elaborate the key features, rationales and implications of paradigm shifts in school leadership in contexts of globalization and local developments. The paper will also illustrate why a new paradigm of the third-wave leadership will be a major international trend of research, development, and practice of school leadership in the coming ten years.
THREE WAVES OF EDUCATIONAL REFORMS
The discussion of contextual changes and school leadership can be in light of the waves of educational reforms in different parts of the world (Cheng, 2003, 2005a). It may provide a more comprehensive picture for us to understand the paradigmatic diversities in conceptualization and practice of leadership for learning and other edu-cational practice.
In the past two decades, the numerous educational reforms have experienced three waves of movements including the effective school movement, quality school movements and world-class school movements (Cheng, 2001b, 2005a). Each wave of reforms works within its own paradigm in conceptualizing the nature of education and leadership and formulating related strategies and initiatives for improvement of educational practice at system, site, and operational levels. When there is a transition
256 Yin Cheong Cheng
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
TAB
LE
1T
HR
EE
PA
RA
DIG
MS
OF
SCH
OO
L LE
AD
ER
SHIP
Firs
t-Wav
e
Para
digm
Seco
nd-W
ave
Para
digm
Third
-Wav
e
Para
digm
Abo
ut th
e Ed
ucat
ion
Envi
ronm
ent
· M
aint
aini
ng an
indu
stria
l soc
iety
· Co
mpa
rativ
ely
stabl
e & p
redi
ctab
le w
ith fe
w
unce
rtain
ties a
nd co
mpe
titio
ns·
Educ
atio
n pr
ovisi
on an
d co
nten
t und
er th
e ce
ntra
lized
man
pow
er p
lann
ing
· Sc
hool
man
agem
ent u
nder
exte
rnal
cont
rol b
y bu
reau
crac
ies
· Li
ttle s
choo
l aut
onom
y
· Se
rvin
g a c
omm
ercia
l and
cons
umpt
ion
socie
ty·
Uns
tabl
e and
fast
chan
ging
with
lots
of
unce
rtain
ties a
nd co
mpe
titio
ns·
Educ
atio
n pr
ovisi
on an
d co
nten
t mai
nly
driv
en
by co
mpe
titio
n an
d m
arke
tizat
ion
· Sc
hool
-bas
ed m
anag
emen
t with
acco
unta
bilit
y fra
mew
ork
and
stake
hold
er p
artic
ipat
ion
· Bo
unde
d sc
hool
auto
nom
y un
der c
entra
l m
onito
ring
and
exte
rnal
revi
ew
· To
war
ds a
life-
long
lear
ning
& m
ultip
le
deve
lopm
ent s
ocie
ty·
Fast
chan
ging
with
impa
cts f
rom
in
tern
atio
naliz
atio
n an
d te
chno
logy
adva
nces
· Ed
ucat
ion
prov
ision
and
cont
ent m
ainl
y ch
arac
teriz
ed b
y gl
obal
izat
ion,
loca
lizat
ion
and
indi
vidu
aliz
atio
n·
Tow
ards
inde
pend
ent w
orld
- cla
ss sc
hool
m
anag
emen
t with
bot
h lo
cal a
nd g
loba
l rel
evan
ce·
Scho
ol au
tono
my
with
loca
l and
inte
rnat
iona
l be
nchm
arki
ngN
atur
e of
Le
arni
ngA
proc
ess o
f stu
dent
rece
ivin
g kn
owle
dge,
skill
s and
cu
ltura
l val
ues f
rom
teac
hers
and
curr
iculu
mA
proc
ess o
f stu
dent
rece
ivin
g a s
ervi
ce p
rovi
ded
by
the s
choo
l and
teac
hers
A pr
oces
s of s
tude
nts d
evel
opin
g co
ntex
tual
ized
m
ultip
le in
telli
genc
es fo
r mul
tiple
and
susta
inab
le
deve
lopm
ents
Mov
emen
ts
and
Refo
rms
Effe
ctiv
e Sc
hool
Mov
emen
ts:
To im
prov
e the
inte
rnal
pro
cess
and
perfo
rman
ce
of sc
hool
s in
orde
r to
enha
nce t
he ac
hiev
emen
ts of
pl
anne
d go
als o
f edu
catio
n
Qua
lity
Scho
ol M
ovem
ents
:To
ensu
re th
e qua
lity
and
acco
unta
bilit
y of
ed
ucat
iona
l ser
vice
s pro
vide
d by
scho
ol m
eetin
g th
e m
ultip
le st
akeh
olde
rs’ e
xpec
tatio
ns an
d ne
eds
Wor
ld-C
lass
Sch
ool M
ovem
ents
:To
ensu
re th
e rel
evan
ce an
d w
orld
- cla
ss st
anda
rds
of ed
ucat
ion
to th
e mul
tiple
and
susta
inab
le
deve
lopm
ents
of st
uden
ts an
d th
e soc
iety
for t
he
futu
re in
glo
baliz
atio
nPo
sitio
ning
of
the
Scho
olD
eliv
ery
of th
e pla
nned
kno
wle
dge,
skill
s and
cu
ltura
l val
ues f
rom
teac
hers
and
curr
iculu
m to
stu
dent
s in
a com
para
bly
stabl
e soc
iety
Prov
ision
of a
serv
ice to
satis
fy th
e nee
ds an
d ex
pect
atio
ns o
f sta
keho
lder
s in
a com
petit
ive m
arke
tFa
cilita
ting
of m
ultip
le an
d su
stain
able
de
velo
pmen
ts of
stud
ents
and
the s
ocie
ty in
a co
ntex
t of g
loba
lizat
ion
and
chan
geCo
ncep
tion
of
Effe
ctiv
enes
sIn
tern
al E
ffec
tiven
ess:
As a
chie
vem
ent o
f pla
nned
goa
ls an
d ta
sks o
f de
liver
y of
kno
wle
dge,
skill
s and
val
ues i
n le
arni
ng,
teac
hing
and
scho
olin
g
Inte
rfac
e Ef
fect
iven
ess:
As s
atisf
actio
n of
stak
ehol
ders
with
the e
duca
tiona
l se
rvice
s inc
ludi
ng ed
ucat
ion
proc
ess a
nd o
utco
mes
; an
d as
acco
unta
bilit
y to
the p
ublic
Futu
re E
ffec
tiven
ess:
As r
elev
ance
to th
e mul
tiple
and
susta
inab
le
deve
lopm
ents
of in
divi
dual
s, th
e com
mun
ity, a
nd
the s
ocie
ty fo
r the
futu
reRo
le o
f Le
ader
ship
Inte
rnal
Lea
ders
hip
with
focu
s on
inte
rnal
impr
ovem
ents
for a
chie
ving
pl
anne
d go
als
Inte
rfac
e Le
ader
ship
with
focu
s on
com
petit
ion
in th
e mar
ket a
nd
satis
fact
ion
of st
akeh
olde
rs
Futu
re L
eade
rshi
pw
ith fo
cus o
n fa
cilita
ting
mul
tiple
and
susta
inab
le
deve
lopm
ents
of st
uden
ts, te
ache
rs an
d th
e sch
ool
Rela
ted
Lead
ersh
ip
Conc
epts
· In
struc
tiona
l Lea
ders
hip
· Cu
rricu
lum
Lea
ders
hip
· St
ruct
ural
Lea
ders
hip
· H
uman
Lea
ders
hip
· M
icro-
Polit
ical L
eade
rshi
p
· St
rate
gic L
eade
rshi
p·
Envi
ronm
enta
l/ C
omm
unity
Lea
ders
hip
· Pu
blic
Rela
tions
Lea
ders
hip
· Br
and
Lead
ersh
ip
· Tr
ipliz
atio
n Le
ader
ship
· M
ulti-
leve
l Lea
rnin
g Le
ader
ship
· Su
stain
able
Dev
elop
men
t Lea
ders
hip
· Pa
radi
gm S
hift
Lead
ersh
ip
257Towards the 3rd Wave School Leadership
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
Stra
tegi
c Co
ncer
ns in
Le
ader
ship
· H
ow ca
n th
e int
erna
l pro
cess
es in
cludi
ng
lear
ning
, tea
chin
g, an
d m
anag
emen
t be
orga
nize
d te
chni
cally
wel
l to
deliv
er th
e pla
nned
kn
owle
dge,
skill
s and
val
ues?
· H
ow ca
n th
e del
iver
y of
kno
wle
dge a
nd sk
ills
from
teac
hers
and
curr
iculu
m to
stud
ents
be
ensu
red
thro
ugh
the p
ract
ical i
mpr
ovem
ent o
f sc
hool
ing,
teac
hing
, and
lear
ning
?·
How
can
the s
choo
l env
ironm
ent a
nd te
ache
rs’
teac
hing
be p
ract
ically
and
tech
nica
lly im
prov
ed
and
deve
lope
d in
a gi
ven
time p
erio
d to
mee
t the
bu
reau
crat
ic ex
pect
atio
ns?
· H
ow ca
n stu
dent
s pro
gres
s wel
l in
the p
lann
ed
curr
iculu
m an
d ac
hiev
e at a
hig
her s
tand
ard
in
the p
ublic
exam
inat
ions
?·
How
can
the i
nter
nal p
roce
ss b
e ope
ratio
nally
ch
ange
d to
max
imiz
e the
use
of a
lloca
ted
reso
urce
s?
· H
ow sh
ould
the s
choo
l pos
ition
itse
lf an
d en
sure
its
pro
visio
n of
serv
ices c
ompe
titiv
e in
the
educ
atio
n m
arke
t?
· H
ow ca
n th
e per
form
ance
of t
each
ing
and
the
outc
omes
of l
earn
ing
mee
t the
stak
ehol
ders
’ ex
pect
atio
ns an
d ne
eds w
ell?
· H
ow ca
n th
e edu
catio
n se
rvice
s be e
nsur
ed
acco
unta
ble t
o th
e pub
lic an
d sta
keho
lder
s th
roug
h va
rious
type
s of p
acka
ging
, mon
itorin
g an
d re
porti
ng?
· H
ow ca
n th
e sch
ool e
xpan
d its
influ
ence
on
its
inte
rface
and
stake
hold
ers t
o en
sure
supp
ort t
o its
surv
ival
and
deve
lopm
ent t
hrou
gh ac
tiviti
es
of b
rand
ing,
mar
ketin
g, p
artn
ersh
ip, a
nd p
ublic
re
latio
ns?
· H
ow ca
n m
ore e
xter
nal r
esou
rces
and
stron
ger
netw
ork
be ac
hiev
ed to
supp
ort t
he sc
hool
?
· H
ow ca
n th
e sch
ool m
ake p
arad
igm
shift
s in
lear
ning
, tea
chin
g &
man
agem
ent p
ossib
le
tow
ards
glo
baliz
atio
n, lo
caliz
atio
n an
d in
divi
dual
izat
ion?
· H
ow ca
n th
e sch
ool m
axim
ize s
tude
nts’
lear
ning
opp
ortu
nitie
s thr
ough
IT en
viro
nmen
t, ne
twor
king
, and
par
adig
m sh
ifts i
n te
achi
ng an
d sc
hool
ing?
· H
ow ca
n th
e sch
ool f
acili
tate
& su
stain
stud
ents’
se
lf-le
arni
ng as
pot
entia
lly li
felo
ng?
· H
ow ca
n stu
dent
s’ ab
ility
to g
loba
lize,
loca
lize
and
indi
vidu
aliz
e the
ir ow
n le
arni
ng b
e wel
l de
velo
ped?
· H
ow ca
n stu
dent
s’ co
ntex
tual
ized
mul
tiple
in
telli
genc
e be c
ontin
uous
ly w
ell d
evel
oped
?·
How
can
vario
us ty
pes o
f int
elle
ctua
l res
ourc
es
be ac
hiev
ed g
loba
lly an
d lo
cally
to su
ppor
t w
orld
-cla
ss le
arni
ng?
Rele
vanc
e to
Stu
dent
s’ Su
stai
nabl
e Le
arni
ng
· N
ot so
expl
icitly
and
dire
ctly
focu
sed
on
stude
nts’
self-
initi
ativ
e, su
stain
able
lear
ning
and
mul
tiple
dev
elop
men
ts·
Focu
sed
mai
nly
on in
struc
tion,
curr
iculu
m an
d m
anag
emen
t for
the d
eliv
ery
of p
lann
ed co
nten
t
· N
ot so
expl
icitly
and
dire
ctly
focu
sed
on
stude
nts’
self-
initi
ativ
e, su
stain
able
lear
ning
and
mul
tiple
dev
elop
men
ts·
Focu
sed
mai
nly
on m
ultip
le st
akeh
olde
rs’
satis
fact
ion,
mar
ket n
eeds
, and
acco
unta
bilit
y
· Fo
cuse
d m
ainl
y on
stud
ents’
self-
initi
ativ
e an
d ca
pacit
y fo
r fut
ure s
usta
inab
ility
, life
-long
le
arni
ng an
d m
ultip
le d
evel
opm
ents
Pote
ntia
l Li
mita
tions
·
Too
inw
ard
look
ing
in p
lann
ing
and
actio
n,
away
from
the e
xter
nal c
onte
xt·
Nar
row
focu
s on
tech
nica
l and
ope
ratio
nal
aspe
cts
· Ig
norin
g th
e sel
f-ini
tiativ
e and
futu
re
deve
lopm
ent o
f stu
dent
s·
Reac
tive t
o ce
ntra
l ins
truct
ion
and
guid
ance
· Ig
norin
g th
e cha
ngin
g en
viro
nmen
t and
sta
keho
lder
s’ ex
pect
atio
ns·
Too
shor
t-ter
m o
rient
ed·
Bein
g no
t “so
stra
tegi
c and
futu
re lo
okin
g”
· To
o m
arke
t driv
en in
pla
nnin
g an
d ac
tion,
away
fro
m th
e cor
e val
ues a
nd m
eani
ng o
f edu
catio
n·
Focu
sing
too
muc
h on
com
petit
ions
, sur
viva
l an
d pu
blic
rela
tions
inste
ad o
f edu
catio
n·
Reac
tive t
o sta
keho
lder
s’ sh
ort-t
erm
div
erse
ne
eds
· Ig
norin
g lo
ng-te
rm an
d su
stain
able
dev
elop
men
t ·
Igno
ring
the r
elev
ance
of e
duca
tiona
l ser
vice
s to
the f
utur
e of s
tude
nts a
nd th
e soc
iety
at la
rge
· Be
ing
“not
so fu
ture
look
ing”
· To
o fu
ture
look
ing
in p
lann
ing
and
actio
n, aw
ay
from
the r
ealit
y in
pra
ctice
· N
ot o
nly
para
digm
shift
in le
ader
ship
but
also
sy
stem
chan
ge cu
ltura
lly an
d te
chno
logi
cally
· D
ifficu
lt to
pra
ctice
and
impl
emen
t·
Igno
ring
the e
xisti
ng m
arke
t nee
ds an
d sta
keho
lder
s’ ex
pect
atio
ns·
Bein
g “n
ot so
tech
nica
lly ef
ficie
nt “
or “n
ot so
m
arke
t stra
tegi
c”
Ad
apte
d f
rom
Che
ng (
2010
b)
258 Yin Cheong Cheng
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
of educational reforms from one wave to the other, there will be paradigm shifts in conceptualization and practice of learning, teaching and leadership (Cheng, 2003). The three waves of educational reforms provide a new typology to conceptualize school leadership into three paradigms: (1) Internal Leadership; (2) Interface Leadership and (3) Future Leadership. The major characteristics of each paradigm of school leadership are completely different from the others, as summarized in Table 1 and explained below.
FIRST WAVE PARADIGM: INTERNAL LEADERSHIP
Since the 1980s, there had been effective school movements in different parts of the world including the UK, US, Australia as well as in many Asian and European coun-tries or cities (Townsend, et al., 2007). The education environment is often assumed to be comparatively stable & predictable with few uncertainties and competitions and the role of education aims to provide the necessary manpower to maintain or serve an industrial society (Blackledge & Hunt, 1985). The provision and content of education are often under the centralized manpower planning and the school management is under the external control by central bureaucracies with little school autonomy. It is assumed that education is knowledge delivery and learning is mainly a process of stu-dents receiving knowledge, skills and cultural values from teachers and the curriculum.
The first wave of educational reforms aims at improving the internal processes in learning, teaching and management and enhancing the internal effectiveness of schools in achieving pre-planned educational aims and curriculum targets. For example, in some areas of the Region such as Hong Kong, India, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, and mainland China, numerous initiatives were targeted at improving key features of internal school processes, some of which were changes in school manage-ment, teacher quality, curriculum design, teaching methods, approaches to evaluation, resourcing and environment for teaching and learning (Gopinathan & Ho, 2000; Kim, 2000; Cheng, 2001a; Abdullah, 2001; Rajput, 2001; Tang & Wu, 2000, MacBeath, 2007).
Within the first wave paradigm, the positioning of school is often on delivery of the planned knowledge, skills and cultural values from teachers and the curriculum to students in a comparably stable society. School effectiveness is a kind of internal effectiveness defined by the achievement of planned goals and tasks in learning, teach-ing and schooling.
Under the central manpower planning, competition between schools is compara-tively bounded and mainly controlled by the central bureaucracy and its regulations and standards. Correspondingly, school sustainability may not be a major concern of school leaders in such a stable education environment. The school strategy developed by leaders is a kind of Internal Improvement Strategy, mainly based on a kind of techni-cal rationality in SWOT analysis and planning with focus on technical improvement of internal operation in teaching, learning and management to enhance achievement of planned school goals. The key initiatives of the school strategy are often short-term oriented and narrowed in obligation to the bureaucratic regulations (Eacott, 2008a).
In the first wave, the role of leadership is mainly a form of internal leadership with strategies focused on assuring internal school effectiveness through improving school performance in general and enhancing contents, methods and processes of teaching
259Towards the 3rd Wave School Leadership
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
and learning in particular. In practicing internal leadership, there is frequent reference to the concepts such as instructional leadership, curriculum leadership, structural leadership, human leadership, and micro-political leadership (Smith & Andrew, 1989; Henderson, 1998; Lee & Dimmock, 1999; Cheng, 2003, 2005a). The strategic concerns in leadership may include the following questions:
• How can the internal processes including learning, teaching, and manage-ment be organized technically to deliver the planned knowledge, skills and values?
• How can the delivery of knowledge and skills from teachers and the curriculum to students be ensured through the practical improvement of schooling, teaching, and learning?
• How can the school environment and teachers’ teaching be practically and tech-nically improved and developed in a given time period to meet the bureaucratic expectations?
• How can students progress well in the planned curriculum and achieve at a higher standard in the public examinations? and
• How can the internal process be operationally changed to maximize the use of allocated resources?
The first-wave paradigm of internal leadership has its limitations. It may be too inward looking in leadership action and development planning without taking the complexities, diversities, expectations and influences of the external environment and stakeholders into full consideration. The positioning of leadership for learning may be too narrowly focused on the technical and operational aspects of educational processes or the school organization but without strong relevance to the self-initiative, life-long learning and future development of students. To a great extent, it may be reactive to the instruction and guidance of the central bureaucracies, ignoring the changing environment and stakeholders’ expectations. Given such a technical, short-term and internal orientation, the first-wave leadership is often perceived as not “so strategic and future looking” for students’ learning.
In the last decades, there have been numerous initiatives and reforms of the first wave implemented internationally as mentioned above. Unfortunately, the results of these efforts were limited and could not satisfy the increasing needs and expectations of the public. People began to doubt how effective are these improvement initiatives and the related internal leadership in meeting the diverse needs and expectations of parents, students, employers, policy-makers, and those concerned in the community. How can school leaders ensure the provided education service accountable to the public? How can they ensure the education practices and outcomes relevant to the changing demands of the local community? All these challenges are concerned with the interface between education institutions and the community. It means that the positioning of leadership for learning and educational practice should be not only on internal process improvement but also the interface issue of meeting the stakeholders’ satisfaction and ensuring accountability to the community.
260 Yin Cheong Cheng
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
SECOND WAVE PARADIGM: INTERFACE LEADERSHIP
In the 1990s, in response to concerns about educational accountability to the public and the quality of education as satisfying stakeholders’ expectations, the second wave of educational reforms emerged internationally. Most reform efforts were directed at ensuring the quality and accountability of schools to the internal and external stake-holders (see, e.g., Coulson, 1999; Evans, 1999; Goertz & Duffy, 2001; Headington, 2000; Heller, 2001; Mahony & Hextall, 2000).
In some areas of the Asia-Pacific such as Hong Kong, India, Singapore, Taiwan, Mainland China and Malaysia, there was a growing trend towards quality education or competitive school movements emphasizing quality assurance, school monitoring and review, parental choice, student coupons, marketization, parental and community involvement in governance, and performance-based funding (Mukhopadhyay, 2001; Mok, et al., 2003; Cheng & Townsend, 2000; Meng, Zhou, & Fang, 1997; Mohandas, Meng & Keeves, 2003; Pang, et al., 2003).
In the second wave, education is often seen as a provision of service to multiple stakeholders in a commercial and consumption society and the nature of learning is a process for students to receive a service. The positioning of school is on provision of educational services the quality of which should satisfy the expectations and needs of key stakeholders - parents, employers and other social constituencies as well as students themselves. This wave emphasizes interface effectiveness between a school and the community, typically defined by stakeholders’ satisfaction, market competition and accountability to the public.
The education environment in the second wave reforms becomes much more unstable and fast changing with lots of uncertainties and competitions. The education provision and content are mainly driven by the changing market needs and diverse stakeholder expectations. To meet the changing needs and external challenges, school-based management is allowed and implemented with an accountability framework and participation of key stakeholders such as staff, parents, alumni, community leaders, etc (Cheng, 2009). Schools have some bounded autonomy under central monitoring and external review. Competitions among schools are serious for resources and survival in an open market, particularly in a context of student population decline in Hong Kong or other parts of the Region. In serious competitions, school elimination often happens and frightens every school and all its school leaders and members. It is not a surprise that the short-term survival of schools often gets more concerns than their long-term sustainability in development (Cheng, 2009; Cheng & Walker, 2008).
The school strategy developed by the school leaders is a kind of Interface Satisfac-tion Strategy, mainly based on the market rationality in the SWOT analysis and strategic planning with focus on competition for survival and resources, client satisfaction with educational services, and cost-return calculation. The initiatives are often short-term, if not middle-term oriented for market success.
School leadership in the second wave is a form of interface leadership with a focus on ensuring interface school effectiveness. Implicitly or explicitly the role of leadership is to ensure accountability to the public, add value to educational services, enhance the marketability of educational provision, and ensure that learning, teaching, and schooling
261Towards the 3rd Wave School Leadership
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
met stakeholders’ expectations. How to manage the interface between schools and the local community successfully in a competitive and fast changing environment proves to be a crucial challenge to school leaders. The commonly used concepts of second-wave leadership were substantively different from those in the first wave, including strategic leadership, community leadership, public relations leadership, brand leadership and political leadership (Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000; Bush & Coleman, 2000; Caldwell, 1989; Davies, 2003, 2006; Goldring & Rallis, 1993; Kirk & Shutte, 2004; Cheng, 2003, 2005a). Some of the strategic concerns of leadership in education include the following:
• How should the school position itself and ensure its provision of services com-petitive in the education market?
• How can the performance of teaching and the outcomes of learning meet the stakeholders’ expectations well?
• How can the educational services be ensured accountable to the public and stakeholders through various types of packaging, monitoring and reporting?
• How can the school expand its influence on its interface and stakeholders to ensure support to its survival and development through activities of branding, marketing, partnership, and public relations? and,
• How can more external resources and stronger network be achieved to support the school?
There are some limitations in the conceptualization and practice of the second wave leadership. It may not be so explicitly and directly focused on students’ self-initiative, sustainable learning and multiple developments. It is often too market-driven or competition-oriented in the SWOT analysis, strategic planning and related action programmes. This orientation may deviate from the core values and meanings of education. The leadership initiatives may be focused too much on school competi-tions, market survival and public relations instead of students’ learning or education activities as the core business. Sometimes, the leadership and strategy may be only reactive to the stakeholders’ diverse short-term needs without considering long-term and sustainable development of students, staff, the school, the profession, and the community. In particular, it may ignore the relevance of educational services to the future of students and the society at large and the second-wave leadership itself may be “market strategic” but “not so future looking” for learning.
THIRD WAVE PARADIGM: FUTURE LEADERSHIP
At the turn of the new millennium, the impact of rapid globalization, far reach-ing influences of information technology (IT) and urgent demands for economic and social developments in international competition stimulated deep reflection on educational reform. It is often assumed that the world is moving towards a society of life-long learning and multiple developments and the environment is fast changing with impacts from internationalization and technology advances. To ensure that the younger generation could meet future challenges of rapid transformations in an era of globalization and IT, researchers, policy-makers, and stakeholders in many countries
262 Yin Cheong Cheng
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
argued for a paradigm shift in learning and teaching. They advocated a reform of the aims, content, practice, and management of education, in order to ensure relevance of students’ learning for the future (see, e.g., Ramirez & Chan-Tiberghein, 2003; Burbules & Torres, 2000; Cheng, 2000a, 2000b, 2003; Daun, 2001; Stromquist & Monkman, 2000).
In such a global context, there is an emerging third wave of educational reforms, with heavy emphasis on future effectiveness, often defined by the relevance of education to the future developments of individuals and their society. In particular, this is seen as meeting changed purposes and functions of education in the new Millennium, and a new paradigm of education which embraces contextualized multiple intelligences, globalization, localization, and individualization (Maclean, 2003; Baker & Begg, 2003; Cheng, 2005a). There is a paradigm shift in learning from the traditional site-bounded learning of the first and second waves towards the CMI-triplized Learning of the third wave as indicated in Table 2. Different from the first and second waves, the new learn-ing of the third wave is a kind of globalized, localized and individualized learning (i.e. triplized learning) with aims to create unlimited learning opportunity for developing students’ contextualized multiple intelligences (CMI) which are relevant to multiple and sustainable developments (including technological, economic, social, political, cultural and learning developments) in both local and global contexts (Cheng, 2005b).
TABLE 2PARADIGM SHIFT IN LEARNING
Paradigm of CMI-Triplized Learning
(Third Wave)
Paradigm of Site-Bounded Learning (First & Second Waves)
Individualized Learning: Reproduced Learning:• Student is the centre of education • Student is the follower of teacher• Individualized Programs • Standard Programs• Self-Learning and developing CMI • Absorbing Knowledge• Self-Actualizing Process • Receiving Process• Focus on How to Learn • Focus on How to Gain• Self Rewarding • External Rewarding
Localized and Globalized Learning: School Site-Bounded Learning:• Multiple Sources of Learning • Teacher-Based Learning• Networked Learning • Separated Learning• Life-long and Everywhere • Fixed Period and Within Institution• Unlimited Opportunities • Limited Opportunities• World-Class learning • Site-Bounded Learning• Local and International Outlook • Mainly Institution-based Experiences
As a consequence of globalization and international competition, this third wave of educational reforms is driven by the notion of world-class education movements. Effec-tiveness and improvement of education are thus defined by world-class standards and
263Towards the 3rd Wave School Leadership
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
global comparability so as to ensure that the future of both student and social develop-ment is sustainable in such a challenging era. Schools may have sufficient autonomy to achieve their own visions for the future with local and international benchmarking in management and educational practice. The positioning of school is a world-class institution for facilitating of multiple and sustainable developments of students and the society in a context of globalization and change.
In the third-wave paradigm, various types of collaboration are strongly emphasized between schools and other institutions on the long-term development of students locally, regionally and globally instead of competition or short-term achievement locally. The strategy developed by the leaders is a kind of Future Development Strategy based on the future relevance rationality in the SWOT analysis and strategic planning with focus on sustainable development of students, teachers and the school, globalization, localization, and individualization in education, and unbounded opportunities for life-long learning. The initiatives are often long-term oriented for multiple developments at different levels (Cheng, 2005a).
In the third wave, school leadership assumes the character of future leadership with focus on the pursuit of a new vision and new aims for education, a paradigm shift in learning, teaching and curriculum, lifelong learning, sustainable development, global networking, an international outlook, and integration of IT in education (Pefianco, Curtis & Keeves, 2003; Peterson, 2003; Cheng, 2001a). How to maximize learning opportunities for students through “triplization in education” (i.e. as an integrative process of globalization, localization and individualization in education) is a key chal-lenge inviting a new paradigm of school leadership for the third wave of educational reforms (Cheng, 2005a). So, new concepts of school leadership are emerging in the third wave, including triplization leadership, multi-level learning leadership, sustain-able development leadership, and paradigm shift leadership (Cheng, 2008b; 2010a). The common strategic concerns of school leaders are completely different from those in the first and second waves, including some of the following questions:
• How can the school make a paradigm shift in learning, teaching and manage-ment practically and culturally possible towards globalization, localization and individualization?
• How can the school maximize students’ learning opportunities through establish-ing IT environment, networking, and paradigm shifts in teaching and schooling?
• How can their schools facilitate and sustain the development of students’ self-learning as potentially lifelong?
• How can students’ ability to globalize, localize and individualize their own learning be well developed?
• How can students’ contextualized multiple intelligences be continuously well developed? And,
• How can various types of intellectual resources be achieved globally and locally to support world-class teaching and learning?
264 Yin Cheong Cheng
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
The Case of Hong Kong: Request for Future Leadership
In 1997, Education Commission Report No. 7, entitled Quality School Education, had strongly emphasized the school-based management as an important framework for enhancing education quality in Hong Kong schools. All aided schools were required to fully implement school-based management since 2000. In 2000, Education Com-mission (2000, May; September) issued a new blueprint for educational reforms with key principles such as Student-focused, “No-loser”, Quality, Life-wide Learning, and Society-wide Mobilization. This blueprint was promoting a paradigm shift in educa-tion with strong emphasis on the application of new principles and new thinking in learning and teaching. According to Cheng (2005c), to a certain extent Hong Kong not only implemented the second wave reforms but also at the same time started to initiate a paradigm shift in education towards the third wave since 2000. Given the nature of SBM promoting parental and community involvement, systematic development plan-ning and reporting, flexibility in using resources and organizational learning in Hong Kong schools, it seems reasonable to assume that schools with better practice of SBM may be more adaptive to paradigm shift in education, and create more opportunities for students’ learning to be globalized, localized, and individualized (Cheng, 1996).
With a sample of 31 secondary schools, 1119 teachers and 7063 students in Hong Kong, Cheng & Mok (2007; 2008) investigated how the practice of SBM is related to the extent of paradigm shift towards globalization, localization and individualization in education and how the extents towards SBM and paradigm shift in education are related
FIGURE 1SCATTERING PLOT OF SCHOOLS: PARADIGM SHIFT & SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT
265Towards the 3rd Wave School Leadership
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
FIG
UR
E 2
“HIG
H S
BM
& H
IGH
PS”
SC
HO
OL
S V
S “L
OW
SB
M &
LO
W P
S” S
CH
OO
LS:
RE
QU
EST
FO
R F
UT
UR
E L
EA
DE
RSH
IP F
OR
LE
AR
NIN
G
266 Yin Cheong Cheng
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
to teachers’ student-centred teaching and students’ active and sustainable learning in terms of learning effectiveness, multiple thinking in learning, positive attitudes towards learning, satisfaction with school life, and application of various learning methods.
The key findings were summarized in Figures 1 and 2. It was revealed that the more a school is towards school-based management, the more the school can be in paradigm shift towards the globalized, localized and individualized education includ-ing curriculum, learning and teaching. Also, school-based management and paradigm shifts in education were found strongly related to the multiple indicators of teachers’ student-centered teaching and students’ active and sustainable learning. The stronger in school-based management and paradigm shift in education of a school, the more likely the teachers in using student-centered approaches in teaching; the more likely the students in positive learning attitudes, application of various learning methods, effective learning (in terms of learning facilitation, self reflection, self-directed learning, and learning opportunity), multiple thinking in learning activities, and satisfaction with their school life. The findings supported the theoretical conceptions of school-based management and paradigm shift proposed by Cheng (2000a, 2005a).
The findings led to a strong request for the third wave leadership in Hong Kong that can facilitate (1) the paradigm shift in management from the external control mana-gement toward the school-based management and (2) the paradigm shift in learning, teaching and curriculum from the site-bounded paradigm towards the CMI-triplized paradigm (Cheng, 1996, 2000a, 2005a).
Triplization Leadership for the Third Wave Learning
To facilitate paradigm shift towards the third wave learning, school leadership needs to be a kind of triplization leadership (Cheng, 2008b). Globalization in learning includes activities such as global networking and exploration through the support of IT in learning, international immersion and exchange programs, international part-nership in various learning projects, video-conferencing for international interactions and sharing among students, and global issues in learning content. The implications for school leaders are to ensure global relevance in learning objectives and content, and achieve a wide range of advanced resources from different parts of the world for students’ globalized learning. In such a context school leaders themselves need to have a global outlook and international communication skills in order to expand the scope of their leadership network and influence to a wide variety of stakeholders beyond their school sites and local communities to embrace a global agenda (Cheng, 2005a).
Localization in learning may cover a wide range of activities: (1) To ensure the aims, content and process of learning relevant to the local context so that students’ learning and development can benefit socially and intellectually from local application; (2) To bring in local resources including physical, financial, cultural, social and intellectual assets to support students’ learning activities; (3) To increase parental involvement, community partnership, and collaboration with various social agents or business sec-tors in creating opportunities for students’ learning and teachers’ teaching; and (4) To ensure the curriculum and students’ learning meets the future needs and multiple developments of the local community (Cheng, 2005a). To realize successful localization
267Towards the 3rd Wave School Leadership
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
in learning, school leaders need to expand their leadership network and influence to key stakeholders and resource people in the local community.
Given the importance of human initiative and creativity to the developments of the new world, individualization inevitably becomes a key element in education reform for the future. The major implication for future school leadership is to enhance human initiative in learning including the motivation, effort and creativity of students. With the support of information technology and new approaches to learning, school leadership should facilitate individualization in learning through such measures as implement-ing individualized learning programs; designing and using individualized learning targets, methods, and progress schedules; encouraging students to be self-learning, self-actualizing, and self-initiating; meeting individual special needs; and developing each student’s own potential including contextualized multiple intelligences (Cheng, 2005a). Given the limited resources for school education and the complexity and mul-tiplicity in human nature and educational expectations, how school leaders can lead their schools to implement these measures successfully to meet the diverse needs of so many individuals and develop their CMI is often a core issue of future leadership.
Multi-level Learning Leadership / Sustainable Development Leadership
Numerous scholars advocate action learning as the medium for development of creativity and intelligence in a rapidly changing environment (Wald & Castleberry, 2000; West-Burnham & O’Sullivan, 1998; Argyris & Schön, 1996; Senge, 1990). Action learning in school is a form of learning which takes place at the individual level, group level or at organizational level. At the individual level, it may take the form of student action projects or teacher’s learning from professional practices (Stevenson, 2002; Argyris, Putnam, & Smith, 1985). At the organizational level or group level, action learning may be a form of learning generated by daily or ad hoc activities or from short-term or long-term actions (or projects) of the school organization or group (Senge, 1990; Cousins, 1996).
In order to support students’ continuous learning at the individual and group levels, it is also necessary to support teachers’ professional learning at both individual and group levels, a process integral to organizational learning. This is a process of multi-level learning which not only sustains continuous student learning but benefits teacher learning, and wider school development (Cheng, 1996; Cheng & Cheung, 2003, 2004; Senge et al., 2000). It follows that school leadership has to operate at multiple levels. Multi-level learning leadership then characterizes the third wave in which school heads lead the action learning of their students, teachers and all other members at different levels. Within this model school leadership itself is also a process of action learning, in which a leader or a group of leaders accumulate action knowledge and wisdom from their practice and that of their colleagues. In particular, the development of multiple thinking and creativity in leadership would contribute to the successful leadership for multi-level learning (Cheng, 2010a).
As a new paradigm, the third-wave leadership also has its own limitations in conceptualization and practice. It may be “too” future looking in the SWOT analysis, strategic planning and action programmes, that may be too far away from the reality in
268 Yin Cheong Cheng
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
practice and result in serious difficulties and failure in implementation. The successful implementation of the third-wave leadership depends heavily not only on a paradigm shift in the mindset of school leaders themselves but also the echoing support from the system change culturally and technologically. This paradigm may ignore the existing market needs and stakeholders’ expectations and experience strong resistance and difficulty in practice. In particular at the beginning of development, the future leader-ship may be considered as “not so technically efficient” or “not so market strategic”.
CONCLUSIONS
The challenges from contextual changes have tremendously changed the nature and practice of education as well as its leadership in the Asia-Pacific in the last two decades. The new visions of education, serious marketization and competition, close interface with the community, diverse stakeholders’ expectations, broadened external participation, enhanced multi-level developments, and continuing technological and cultural changes all demand education leaders to be more strategic and sensitive to the contextual changes. They are expected to perform new leadership with new thinking, international horizon, forward looking, innovative perspectives, strong social networks, and proactive action programmes.
The three-wave models of leadership in fact represent a set of different paradigms that can be employed in conceptualization of the nature and practice of leadership for learning and other educational practice in facing the increasing impacts and complexi-ties of contextual changes and educational reforms. Table 1 has summarized the major characteristics of three paradigms of leadership that present a new research typology for conceptualizing, investigating and analyzing the paradigmatic diversities in leadership for learning. The implications for research on leadership locally and internationally are fruitful and innovative, as explained below:
Single Paradigm Research: The rationale of research may be based on one single para-digm with focus on investigating the related factors and characteristics of leadership for learning in terms of leadership context, leadership purpose, leadership practice, lead-ership impacts, or/and leadership development. In the past three decades, numerous studies of leadership in education were mainly based on the first wave paradigm with focus on internal leadership. Even though the development of second wave leadership in education has attracted much more attention in the last decade, the research in this area is still underdeveloped not only in the Asia-Pacific but also in other parts of the world. More research on the second wave leadership should be encouraged. Given the importance of students’ self-initiative and capacity for future sustainability, life learning and multiple developments in an era of globalization and transformation, I believe, the third wave paradigm that provides a completely new direction for conceptualiz-ing leadership will become a major international trend of research, development and practice of school leadership for new learning in the coming ten years.
Multiple Paradigms Research: In ongoing educational reforms internationally, the practice and development of leadership for learning in reality may be diverse, involv-ing more than one paradigm. It would be interesting to apply two or three paradigms to investigate the fundamental differences in school leadership and compare the major
269Towards the 3rd Wave School Leadership
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
leadership characteristics between school leaders whose schools are in different stages or contexts of educational reform or development. The comparative studies of school leadership locally, regionally, and internationally across the three paradigms may provide a much broader and deeper perspective to understand the dynamics and related key features of leadership for students’ learning. Also, the research involving a full range of the key concepts of internal leadership, interface leadership and future leadership may yield a more comprehensive picture to understand the complexities of educational reform and leadership and the findings may be more sophisticated and powerful to inform leadership practice and policy formulation for the new paradigm of learning. Up to now, investigation of school leadership by multiple paradigms is a completely new area yet to be explored in research.
Paradigm Shift Research: The paradigm shift of school leadership from one wave to another wave involves not only the technical or operational changes but also the ideological and cultural changes at both individual and system levels. It is quite com-plicated and not automatic. How can school leaders change their original patterns of thinking and practice from the first or second wave paradigm towards the third wave paradigm for new learning? What are the major conditions or driving forces for such kind of paradigm shift possible and successful? Why? What are the major characteristics and best practices of paradigm shift process in leadership locally and internationally? In addition to paradigm shift in leadership, how can school leaders facilitate paradigm shift in learning, teaching and management among students, teachers and stakehold-ers successfully towards the third wave? What are the major problems in the process of leading paradigm shift in education in schools? What are the major conceptual and operational differences between the transformational leadership and paradigm shift leadership in research (Leithwood & Tomlinson & Gene, 1996)? .... All these or similar questions are in fact proposing an unexplored new area for paradigm shift research in coming years.
In practice, school leaders need to face up to the contextual challenges and develop appropriate positioning and strategy for their schools to be effective in achieving school aims, competitive in surviving a market environment, and sustainable in pursuing the future for their students, teachers, schools and the community. In different contexts and stages of school life cycle, school leaders may adopt different paradigms to conceptual-ize their leadership for learning in different ways such as internal leadership, interface leadership, future leadership or a combination of them. To different paradigms, leader-ship for learning is characterized by different assumptions of education environment, nature of learning, types of reforms and movements, school positioning, conception of effectiveness, nature of competition and demand for sustainability. Correspondingly, the key features of school strategy, leadership role, leadership concepts, strategic concerns, relevance to students’ sustainable learning and multiple developments, and potential limitations are completely different across these three paradigms.
Although internal leadership, interface leadership, and future leadership for learning are based on different paradigms and they have their own features and limitations, all of them have their key contributions to leadership functions in a complicated changing education environment. To a great extent, they are supplementary to each other, taking internal improvement, interface satisfaction and accountability, and future relevance
270 Yin Cheong Cheng
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
into consideration in leadership practice. To different leaders and different schools, the emphasis on these three types of leadership may be different. If a school pursues not only internal effectiveness and interface effectiveness but also future effectiveness in student learning and other educational practice, the leadership of this school should also include the key elements of internal leadership, interface leadership and future leadership as a whole. It may be considered as Total Leadership for Learning.
From the trends of three wave reforms in the last two decades, the ongoing efforts in development of leadership in education should shift their focus from mainly internal or interface leadership towards the third wave future leadership. It is hoped that the typology of 3-wave paradigms can provide a new comprehensive framework for edu-cators, leaders, researchers, and policy-makers in the Asia-Pacific and beyond to study, develop and practice leadership for new learning and paradigm shift in education.
Part of the materials in this paper was adapted from Cheng (2007; 2008b; 2010b).
REFERENCES
Aaker, D.A. & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). Brand leadership. New York: The Free Press.Abdullah, H. M. (2001, June 12-15). Policy dialogue on quality improvement in education:
A Malaysian experience. Paper presented at the Second International Forum on Qual-ity Education: Policy, Research and Innovative Practices in Improving Quality of Education, Beijing, China.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Baker, R., & Begg, A. (2003). Change in the school curriculum: Looking to the future. In J. P. Keeves & R. Watanabe (Eds.), International handbook of educational research in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 541-554). The Netherlands: Kluwer Aca-demic Publishers.
Blackledge, D., & Hunt, B. (1985). Sociological interpretations of education. Sydney: Croom Helm.
Burbules, N. C., & Torres, C. A. (Eds.). (2000). Globalization and education: Critical per-spectives. New York: Routledge.
Bush, T. & Coleman, M. (2000). Leadership and strategic management in education. London: Paul Chapman.
Caldwell, B. J. (1989). Strategic leadership, resource management and effective school reform. Journal of Educational Administration. 36(5), 445-461.
Caldwell. B. (2006). Re-imaging educational leadership, Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research Press.
Caldwell, B. & Spinks, J. (1992). Leading a self management school. Lewes, UK: Falmer.Chapman, J. D., Sackney, L. E., & Aspin, D. N. (1999). Internationalization in educational
administration: Policy and practice, theory and research. In Murphy, J. & Louis, K. S. (1999) (eds.). Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 73-97). (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
271Towards the 3rd Wave School Leadership
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
Cheng, Y. C. (1996). School effectiveness and school-based management: A mechanism for development. London, UK: Falmer Press.
Cheng, Y. C. (2000a). A CMI-triplization paradigm for reforming education in the new millennium. International Journal of Educational Management, 14(4), 156-174.
Cheng, Y. C. (2000b). Educational change and development in Hong Kong: Effective-ness, quality, and relevance. In T. Townsend & Y. C. Cheng (Eds.), Educational change and development in the Asia-Pacific region: Challenges for the future (pp. 17-56). The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger Publisher.
Cheng, Y. C. (2001a). Towards the third wave of educational reforms in Hong Kong: Tripliza-tion in the new millennium. Plenary speech presented at the International Forum on Educational reforms in the Asia-Pacific Region “Globalization, Localization, and Individualization for the Future”, HKSAR, China.
Cheng, Y. C. (2001b, January 5-9). Educational relevance, quality and effectiveness: Paradigm shifts. Invited keynote speech presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and School Improvement “Equity, Globalization, and Change: Educa-tion for the 21st Century”, Toronto, Canada.
Cheng, Y. C. (2002a). The changing context of school leadership: Implications for para-digm shift. In Leithwood, K. & Hallinger, P. (eds.) Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 103-132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Cheng, Y.C. (2002b). Leadership and strategy. In Bush, T. and Bell, L. (Eds), The principles and practice of educational management (pp. 51-69). London: Paul Chapman.
Cheng, Y. C. (2003). School leadership and three waves of education reforms. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 417-439.
Cheng, Y. C. (2005a). New paradigm for re-engineering education: Globalization, localization and individualization. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Cheng, Y. C. (2005b). Multiple thinking and multiple creativity in action learning. Journal of Education Research, 134(June), 76-105.
Cheng, Y. C. (2005c). Globalization and educational reforms in Hong Kong: Paradigm shift. In J. Zaida, K. Freeman, M. Geo-JaJa, S. Majhanovich, V. Rust, & R. Zajda (eds.) The international handbook on globalization and education policy research. (ch. 11, pp. 165-187) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Cheng, Y. C. (2007). Future developments of educational research in the Asia-Pacific Region: Paradigm shifts, reforms and practice. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 6, 71-85.
Cheng, Y. C. (2008a). Reform syndrome and educational research in the Asia-Pacific Region. Invited presentation at the Symposium on Educational Research: International Per-spectives, American Educational Research Association, Annual Meeting, 28 March 2008, New York, USA.
Cheng, Y. C. (2008b). New learning and school leadership: Paradigm shift towards the third wave. In MacBeath, J. & Cheng, Y. C. (eds.). Leadership for learning: International perspectives. (pp. 15-35) Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Cheng, Y. C. (2009). Educational reforms in Hong Kong in the last decide: Reform syndrome and new developments. International Journal of Educational Managmenet, 23 (1), 65-86.
272 Yin Cheong Cheng
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
Cheng, Y. C. (2010a). Multiple thinking and creativity in school leadership: A new paradigm for sustainable development. In S. Huber (ed.) School leadership: International perspec-tives. (pp. 181-210) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Cheng, Y. C. (2010b). A Topology of 3-wave Models of Strategic Leadership in Educa-tion. International Studies in Educational Administration, 38 (1), 35-54.
Cheng, Y. C. & Cheung, W. M. (1999) Education quality profile: The case of Hong Kong secondary schools. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the America Educational Research Association, 19-24 April, Montreal, Canada.
Cheng, Y. C. & Cheung, W. M. (2003). Profiles of multi-level self-management in schools. International Journal of Educational Management, 17(3), 100-115.
Cheng, Y. C. & Cheung, W. M. (2004). Four types of school environment: Multi-level self management & education quality. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(1), 71-100.
Cheng, Y. C. & Mok, M.M.C (2008). What effective classroom: Towards a paradigm shift. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 19(4), 365-385.
Cheng, Y. C. & Mok, M.M.C. (2007) School-based management and paradigm shifts in education: An empirical study. International Journal of Educational Management. 21(6), 517-542.
Cheng, Y. C. & Townsend, T. (2000). Educational change and development in the Asia-Pacific region: Trends and issues. In T. Townsend & Y. C. Cheng (Eds.), Educational change and development in the Asia-Pacific region: Challenges for the future (pp. 317-344). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Cheng, Y. C. & Walker, J. A. (2008). When reform hits reality: The bottle-neck effect in Hong Kong primary schools. School Leadership and Management. 28(5), 467-483.
Coulson, A. J. (1999). Market education: The unknown history. New Brunswick. N.J.: Transaction Publishers.
Cousins, J. B. (1996). Understanding organizational learning for educational leader-ship and school reform. In Leithwood, K., Chapman, J., Corson, D., Hallinger, P. and Hart, A. (eds.) International handbook of educational leadership and administration. (pp. 589-652), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Daun, H. (2001). Educational restructuring in the context of globalization and national policy. US: Routledge Falmer.
Davies, B. (2003). Rethinking strategy and strategic leadership in schools. Educational management and administration, 26(2), 185-195.
Davise, B. (2006). Leading the strategically focused school: Success and sustainability, Lon-don: Paul Chapman.
Davies, B. J. & Davies, B. (2006). Developing a model of strategic leadership in schools. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 34(1), 121-139.
Eacott, S. (2008a). An analysis of contemporary literature on strategy in education. International Journal of leadership in education, 11(3), 257-280.
Eacott, S. (2008b). Strategy in educational leadership: In search of unity. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(3), 353-375.
Education Commission. (2000 September). Learning for life, learning through life: Reform proposals for the education system in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Government Printer.
Evans, G. R. (1999). Calling academia to account: Rights and responsibilities. Buckingham.
273Towards the 3rd Wave School Leadership
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
Fullan, M. (1998). The meaning of educational change: A quarter of a century of learn-ing. In Hargreaves, A., Lierberman, A., Fullan, M. & Hopkins, D.( eds.). International handbook of educational change (pp. 214-228). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Goertz, M. E., & Duffy, M. C. (2001). Assessment and accountability systems in the 50 States, 1999-2000. CPRE Research Report Series.
Goldring, E. B., & Rallis, S. F. (1993, April). Principals as environmental leaders: The external link for facilitating change. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research, Atlanta, USA.
Gopinathan, S., & Ho, W. K. (2000). Educational change and development in Singa-pore. In T. Townsend & Y. C. Cheng (Eds.), Educational change and development in the Asia-Pacific region: Challenges for the future (pp. 163-184). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Hallinger, P., Walker, A., & Bajunid, I.A. (2005). Educational leadership in East Asia: Implications for education in global society. UCEA Review, 45(1), 1-5.
Headington, R. (2000). Monitoring, assessment, recording, reporting and accountability: Meeting the standards. London: David Fulton.
Heller, D. E. (Ed.). (2001). The states and public higher education policy: Affordable, access, and accountability. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Henderson, J. (1989). Transformative curriculum leadership, London, UK: Routledge.Keeves, J. P. & Watanabe, R. (2003) (Eds.), International handbook of educational research
in the Asia-Pacific region. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Kim, Y. H. (2000). Recent changes and developments in Korean school education. In T.
Townsend & Y. C. Cheng (Eds.), Educational change and development in the Asia-Pacific region: Challenges for the future (pp. 83-106). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Kirk, P. & Shutte, A.M. (2004). Community leadership development, Community Devel-opment Journal, 39, 234-252.
Lee, J.C.K. & Dimmock, C. (1999). Curriculum leadership and management in secondary schools” A Hong Kong case study. School Leadership and Management, 19(4), 455-481.
Leithwood, K., Tomlinson, D., & Gene, M. (1996). Transformational school leadership. In Leithwood, K., Chapman, J., Corson, D., Hallinger, P. and Hart, A. (eds.) Interna-tional handbook of educational leadership and administration. (pp. 785-840). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
MacBeath, J. (2007). Improving school effectiveness: Retrospective and prospective. In T. Townsend, B. Avalos, B. Caldwell, Y. C. Cheng, B. Fleisch, L. Moos, L. Stoll, S. Stringfield, K. Sundell, W. M. Tam, N. Taylor, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), International handbook on school effectiveness and improvement (pp. 57-74). Dordrecht, The Nether-lands: Springer.
MacBeath, J. & Cheng, Y. C. (2008) (eds.). Leadership for learning: International perspec-tives. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Maclean, R. (2003). Secondary education reform in the Asia-Pacific region. In J. P. Keeves & R. Watanabe (Eds.), International handbook of educational research in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 73-92). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Mahony, P., & Hextall, I. (2000). Reconstructing teaching: Standards, performance and accountability. London: Routledge.
274 Yin Cheong Cheng
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
Meng, H., Zhou, Y., & Fang, Y. (1997)(eds.) School based indicators of effectiveness: Experiences and practices in APEC members. (pp. 207-250), China: Guangxi Normal University Press.
Mohandas, R., Meng, H. W., & Keeves, J. P. (2003). Evaluation and accountability in Asian and Pacific countries. In J. P. Keeves & R. Watanabe (Eds.), International hand-book of educational research in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 107-122). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Mok, M. M. C., Gurr, D., Izawa, E., Knipprath, H., Lee, I., Mel, M. A., Palmer, T., Shan, W., & Zhang, Y. (2003). Quality assurance and school monitoring. In J. P. Keeves & R. Watanabe (Eds.), International handbook of educational research in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 945-958). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Mukhopadhyay, M. (2001). Total quality management in education. New Delhi: National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration.
Pang, I., Isawa, E., Kim, A., Knipprath, H., Mel, M. A., & Palmer, T. (2003). Family and community participation in education. In J. P. Keeves & R. Watanabe (Eds.), International handbook of educational research in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 1063-1080). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Pefianco, E. C., Curtis, D., & Keeves, J. P. (2003). Learning across the adult lifespan. In J. P. Keeves & R. Watanabe (Eds.), International handbook of educational research in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 305-320). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Peterson, C. C. (2003). Lifespan human development. In J. P. Keeves & R. Watanabe (Eds.), International handbook of educational research in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 379-394). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Rajput, J. S. (2001, February 14-16). Reforms in school education in India. Plenary speech presented at the International Forum on Educational reforms in the Asia-Pacific Region “Globalization, Localization, and Individualization for the Future”, HKSAR, China.
Ramirez, F. O., & Chan-Tiberghein, J. (2003). Globalisation and education in Asia. In J. P. Keeves & R. Watanabe (Eds.), International handbook of educational research in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 1095-1106). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth dimension: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J. and Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learns. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Shum, L. C. & Cheng, Y. C. ( 1997) Perceptions of woman principal’s leadership and teacher’s work attitudes. Journal of Educational Administration. 35(2), 168-188.
Smith, W. F. & Andrew, R. C. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals make a dif-ference. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Stevenson, T. (2002). Anticipatory action learning: Conversations about the future. Futures, 34(5), 417-425.
Stromquist, N. P., & Monkman, K. (2000). Globalization and education: Integration and contestation across cultures. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield.
Tang, X., & Wu X. (2000). Educational change and development in the People’s Republic of China: Challenges for the future. In T. Townsend & Y. C. Cheng (Eds.), Educational change and development in the Asia-Pacific region: Challenges for the future (pp. 133-162). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
275Towards the 3rd Wave School Leadership
RIE, vol. 29-2 (2011)
Townsend, T., Avalos, B., Caldwell, B., Cheng, Y. C., Fleisch, B., Moos, L., Stoll, L., String-field, S., Sundell, K., Tam, W. M., Taylor, N., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2007). International handbook on school effectiveness and improvement. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) (2006), Teachers and educational quality: Monitoring global needs for 2015, Montreal, Canada: UNESCO UIS.
Wald, P. J., & Castleberry, M. S. (Eds.). (2000). Educators as learners: Creating a professional learning community in your school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Walker, A. (2003). School leadership and management. In Keeves, J.P. & Watanabe, R. (eds.) International handbook of educational research in the Asia-Pacific Region. (pp. 959-972), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
West-Burnham, J., & O’Sullivan, F. (1998). Leadership and professional development in schools: How to promote techniques for effective professional learning. London: Financial Times Pitman Publishers.
Fecha de recepción: 04 de abril de 2011.Fecha de revisión: 04 de abril de 2011.Fecha de aceptación: 12 de abril de 2011.